Monday, August 16, 2010
by Dymphna
Several people have sent copies of this picture, and no wonder. In a dark, here-be-evil manner it is a gripping reality. You don't have to visualize anymore how close Islam has landed again. That red rectangle marks the place where a new chapter in an ancient evil will open:
After looking at that image for a while, I tried to pick out the path where the Baron and I had wandered early in December 2001. It is hard now to retrace much of it. We were both benumbed, watching the wisps of smoke rising from that vaster-than-I-can-describe-crater, passing the hundreds of dead bouquets interspersed between plea after plea for missing loved ones, written by the survivors left behind on that beautiful September morning.
Does anyone else remember the deep blue perfection of that early Autumn day? How fathomless the September sky? How temperate the sun had become after the heat of August? Only the gum trees and sycamore had turned color; the Michaelmas daisies were in full bloom, sprawled under the fig tree. Those images would shortly be pierced by the horror of falling bodies and buildings, of determined heroism in the face of certain death .
Who would have believed then the hell hole created by Islam would still be there nine years later? Who could have conceived that Islam would be blatantly performing yet another “We Won” victory dance, a deceitful, time-worn choreography they have sadistically named “Cordoba”? This time we will experience the devastation in slow-motion, but it will be every bit as lethal as the original cataclysm on September 11th 2001.
Thus, we have Ground Zero now and appallingly close to it, there will be erected — despite our requests not to build — the disturbing “Less than Zero” edifice. Just in case we don't comprehend the depths of "Cordoba" they have been careful to plan this for September 11th, 2011. Yet another 9/11 of destruction. We must be softened up before we can be coaxed into going quietly. They are masters at this.
As sometimes happens when the banality of enormous evil seems overwhelming, I wandered over to the Belmont Club to catch up on Wretchard’s essays.
- - - - - - - - -
That is often good exercise; it clears the head and calms the mind to read Richard Fernandez’ thoughtful, moderate syntheses.
The top post (at the time) was titled “If I Had A Hammer”. As usual, Wretchard provided a perspective which permitted one to see the larger patterns.
Among other things in that essay, he said:
Pete Seeger wrote “If I Had a Hammer” to support the ‘progressive’ movement. Anyone who thinks the song is about bells, danger or hammers is missing the point. Most everyone who heard the lyrics ‘got it’. In the case of the Ground Zero mosque, one line of argument is that it is all about simple piety and innocent worship or even about a Green YMCA. But polls suggest that about 70% of the public ‘get it’.
The nice thing about parabolic speech is that its meta-meaning is deniable. You can shelter behind its literal words and that is precisely why it is so effective as a means of indirect discourse. The important thing to remember about allegorical discourse is that the arguments are transferred elsewhere.
Indeed. One has only to read the depredations of the Journolisters to grasp some of the latest transferences in which our professional progressives indulge. And one only has to note that the profound distaste of seventy per cent of the American people regarding this project will matter not a whit to those who are determined to push our faces into the supremacist reality of Islam-come-to-stay-and-to-reign.
In addition to Wretchard’s syntheses, there are his faithful commenters. I remember some of them from the old days.
One fellow I didn’t recognize, but his comment resonated. This is from cfbleachers (slightly edited; emphases mine):
…got me to thinking about what we should do with the separation of “church” and “state”…when the “church” is really an enemy “state” in disguise. What if we are looking is not at a mosque in Manhattan, but a shoe being beaten against the grave site of our innocents?
Do we, as Americans have a right to defend our nation from an enemy that is willing to hide behind hospitals to lob bombs, or behind a mosque to lob sharia bombs at our society?
[…]
We have lost our ability to distinguish…the preservation of the right to advance the well being of the nation as a whole. When we allow the destruction of the nation by subverting our defenses and protections, our very borders, against invaders bent on weakening us, softening us up, and beating us with our rolled-up Constitution.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in our Constitution that demands we sacrifice the defense of the nation to our enemies. When we stop defending the nation in order to glorify sanctimonious breast-beating, we are lost.
This administration and its progenitors — Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Noam Chomsky and George Soros — subscribe to a “tear-down-to-build-up” mentality. So do our sworn enemies, which is why they often [use] the same playbook. They only part ways when they dream of who will be left standing in the “build-up” stage.
Frankly, it reminds me of Manson’s Helter Skelter theory. I thought he was a madman. He may have been prescient.
For the moment, our would-be destroyers are joined in the battle against us. If they were to win, they would turn on one another and begin further rounds of destruction. Will we, to paraphrase Wylie’s prediction during the horrors in World War II, be reduced to two survivors, one ‘white’ and one ‘twenty per cent freckled’? Will one of them die from a blow to the head while the other languishes a few hours more and then dies from the poisoned soup his dead comrade fixed? Is that our ineluctable fate?
Wretchard says in a comment:
The Ground Zero mosque event is like one of those Soylent Green moments, when you suddenly understand how it works. Or it is like finding out that your local church is corrupt and perverted. All of a sudden all your memories get reinterpreted. But in this case it applies to the politicians who have sold their souls to accommodate not even Islam, but a perverted and oppressive form of it.
Unfortunately, it appears that the “perverted and oppressive form” of Islam is the real Islam. The original documents in all their confusion and incoherence are full of perversion and oppression and deception and death. Oh, so much death!
The gatekeepers should be free to approve of the mosque and even endorse it. And the voters should be free to vote them out. The curious thing about all these gatekeepers is that after ignoring the New Black Panthers, the corrupt voters’ lists, after suing Arizona to keep it from enforcing statute, after treating everything like their own they suddenly say “we are a nation of laws … we must respect private property” when it comes to a mosque built near Ground Zero.
It’s so fake you wonder why nobody noticed earlier that while they play “real rules” they insist everyone else should play the “formal rules”. They play one game and make you play another. Because you should be too good to “descend to their level”.
Absolutely. Why, we pride ourselves on not being “like them”. But the problem for us average folks is grasping the full picture. It’s as though we pray this is only a dream, that soon we’ll wake to find our country hasn’t been sold down the river and that Massa Barack isn’t really as mean-spirited and small-minded as he appears.
But there is no waking from this, and, to a large extent, we realize the slavery imposed on us while we weren’t paying attention.
Wretchard again:
Well, anyone who agrees to play at this shabby and crooked table deserves to lose. The first and essential decision is not to dance to their tune. The most important way to keep from getting took is to stay away from a clip joint.
But what if, increasingly, the only game in town is going on at the clip joint?
Go lateral. Create linkages in other spheres. Probably the most relevant linkage to conceive of right now is the elections. The mosque isn’t about “laws” or “private property”, it’s about the 2010 elections.
Other spheres? Ah, yes, the Tea Parties. No wonder it’s so vital to smash them. And how about Sarah Palin? There’s a woman who refuses to dance to any of their tunes and declines to show her cards.
No wonder average folks are so energized by Ms. Palin’s zest and zeal. No wonder the Political Class hates her. Hates her so much they needed to have one of their own move in next door to the Palin house and report the quotidian events of her life to anyone who’ll pay to listen.
Come to think of it, there are some parallels between the Zero Mosque builders (first they have to tear the building down) and the Sarah Palin Stalkers (first they have to destroy her). Both of them use the tactic of moving in for the kill.
Wretchard says:
It doesn’t have to make sense.
Mais oui, sir! It makes perfect sense. But the sense it makes is sleazy, duplicitous and soul-sucking.
Sometimes I am nostalgic for the days of Bill Clinton. The sleaze level should have had its own color-coded threat warnings, but it was the simple sex-lies-and-videotape sleaze. That was the kind of thing one came to expect of politicians, but done on a grander, more grandiose scale, a Clintonesque level.
This current sleaze is far darker. And, no, I am not referring to Obama’s black father. Our president’s past is a murk without a paper trail. His metric is divisive: “I won”. His “change” is a doom of debt that stretches so far past the horizon not even our grandchildren will see the end of it.
The top-down rot infecting our body politic is wormy with incompetence. Thus we will end not with a bang, but in a miasma of malevolent incoherence.
Gates of Vienna
